Data Quality in Zooarchaeological Faunal Identification

Abstract

There is no standard for reporting faunal identifications in zooarchaeology. Zooarchaeologists are open to accusations that reported conclusions are invalid. Other sciences counter such problems through use of quality assurance, consisting of quality control (QC), and assessment (QA). QC is a standard for procedures adopted during laboratory practice. A rarely cited standard was published by Driver in 1992. QA focuses on criteria for faunal identification and is becoming more common in zooarchaeology. QC and QA must be integral parts of zooarchaeology if identifications are to be accepted. The stakes are high because paleobiological datasets are now used to study problems in conservation science.

Clarkson, C. (2002). An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, 65–75.CrossRef

Gee, H. E. (1993). The distinction between postcranial bones of Bos primigenius Bojanus, 1827 and Bison priscus Bojanus, 1827 from the British Pleistocene and the taxonomic status of Bos and Bison. Journal of Quaternary Science, 8, 79–92.CrossRef

Gobalet, K. W. (2005). Comment on Size matters: 3-mm sieves do not increase richness in a fishbone assemblage from Arrawarra 1, an Aboriginal Australian shell midden on the mid-north coast of New South Wales, Australia by Vale and Gargett. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 643–645.CrossRef

Lawrence, B. (1951). Post-cranial skeletal characteristics of deer, pronghorn, and sheep-goat with notes on Bos and Bison. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 35(3), whole issue.